Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

romanzipp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 665 posts

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#511

Post by atonse »

brushfoot wrote: post #394
BeFlatXIII wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine stanning for nickel-and-diming.

I can imagine supporting my right to charge my customers for the software I build for them, absolutely. And I support Canon's right to do the same. Many of us have had the experience of clients telling us to "just" write code that they think is easy, but we know how that can go in reality. There's already a simple solution here in HDMI. I don't see a reason to be outraged at Canon over not providing another solution…

When I was trying to get back into photography, the fact that Sony's camera has built-in webcam capabilities played a small (but not trivial) part in choosing to invest in Sony's ecosystem. They're just great cameras overall, but I can't say it didn't play a part.

USB camera feeds work out of the box with Sony mirrorless cameras.

So ultimately, if Canon wants to play these games, let's see if the market of NEW buyers like me respond in a way that will make Canon change their minds.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#512

Post by bayindirh »

xyst wrote: post #469
bayindirh wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That requirement is reversed in the last five years IIRC. My Sony A7-III doesn't have that, for example. Neither modern Canons, AFAIK. The funnier thing is, you can't use the videos out of your camera for commercial purposes, because the video codecs inside your camera doesn't come with commercial licenses out of the box. So if you are going to use your camera for production which you'll earn money, you need to pay c…

Wipe the EXIF data on the images when you make it public and nobody will be the wiser ;)

I’m not sure. Like how color printers write their serial numbers and date and whatnot on every page, these devices might be watermarking every video subtly, and we might not know it.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#513

Post by gwbas1c »

kjs3 wrote: post #499
gwbas1c wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then when he tried using the "Steven Colbert" character on a different show, Comedy Central threatened him because Steven Colbert does not have rights to the "Steven Colbert" character.

Al Shugart started Shugart Associates and pretty much created the 5 1/4" floppy market. He sold to Xerox. He later started Shugart Technology and was promptly threatened with a lawsuit because he literally had sold his rights to his own name (in the particular context). He changed the name to Seagate Technology and the rest is history. Yes, you can be enjoined from using your own name.

> Yes, you can be enjoined from using your own name.

This is not that case.

In popular media when "The Colbert Report" was broadcast, Steven Colbert was very open about the fact that he was playing a character on TV who happened to have the same name as him.

In the case of "The Tonight Show featuring Steven Colbert," he is not playing the character from the Colbert Report.

The very specific bit was from after the 2017 election when Trump was elected. Steven Colbert did a bit, in character as "Steven Colbert", with props from "The Colbert Report", and a guest appearance from Jon Stewart. (Because the main focus of "The Colbert Report" was to mock conservatives.) Otherwise, everything Steven Colbert (the person) does on "The Tonight Show featuring Steven Colbert" does not involve the "Steven Colbert" character from "The Colbert Report."

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#515

Post by dawnerd »

virtualritz wrote: post #224

That's reminds me when I was in South East Asia a few years back and wanted to do some time lapse or series photography with my Sony Alpha a7ii. A camera that I had paid close to 2k€ for (just body, no glass). It required an app to be installed on the camera that was paid-for. Which in term required the camera to be connected to a WiFi. Imagine discovering this while on a trip in the jungle or the desert or whatever…

Sony wanted something like 500USD to unlock 4k on my prosumer video camera. Kinda insane.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#516

Post by ska »

LegitShady wrote: post #465
bayindirh wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course. Below a selection of some user manuals, with the texts copied verbatim. From Nikon D500 User Manual [0], page 22: From Nikon Z6/Z7 User Manual [1], page 236: Sony has a similar note for A9 [3], but can be grouped under here, which is almost the same: AVC Patent Portfolio License: THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON - COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (i) E…

I wonder what the commercial licenses actually cost. I know there was a big movement of shooting movies and events with canons when good video on dslrs first became a thing. I never even thought about codec licenses, because that stuff shouldn't exist. the manufacturer should buy the license so the camera can use it forever, because its just a paperweight without it, and I dont think they should be able to sell camer…

This is a problem with 'prosumer' gear in general. If camera manufactures bought a transferable commercial license for everything in it, it would be too expense for consumer use, but the people licensing IP to them want a piece if you are making money with it.

Similar to software that is free or low cost for non-commercial use only, even with the same functionality.

The good news is typically nobody will chase you down on this unless you are making real money. The bad news is, once you are, they will.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#517

Post by RobotToaster »

soco wrote: post #127
Pawka wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds insane. But what is more surprising to me - is why dolls were taxed differently than other toys. At first glance, it looks like stupid rules force to play silly games.

Some trade war from the XIX century or something? Or maybe because dolls were historically thought for girls?

Possibly, bisque and china dolls were often imported from Germany.

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#518

Post by reverendsteveii »

We seem to be passing the point where we discover new things that software can do and entering a phase where development is primarily going to be about gatekeeping, paywalling and eliminating capabilities. After all, why would you sell something when you can sell a subscription to that something and get paid every month? Even better, why not sell the thing and then rent the ability to use the thing?

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#519

Post by reverendsteveii »

halgir wrote: post #68
alibarber wrote: post #20

I also discovered that I couldn't use my Canon SLR to record more than 30 minutes of video continuously. The problem however wasn't Canon, but that I lived in a region (EU) that would have imposed a customs tariff on cameras that could do that, but by keeping it under that, the camera would be classed as a 'stills' camera and so was therefore exempt. Admittedly this is different from the case in the article - but it…

Reminds me of when lawyers successfully argued that X-Men are not human, so that their action figures would be classified as "toys" rather than "dolls" and thus charged a lower tariff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Biz%2C_Inc._v._United_Stat...

This has interesting implications for the Marvel canon, as the conflict between average humans and mutants is a primary plot driver for x-men

Re: Canon wants us to pay for using our own camera as a webcam

#520

Post by adolph »

Spivak wrote: post #434
15155 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think if it's working as intended and as designed then it's hard to call it a loophole. This assumes everyone acts in good faith. A popular one these days is the "gun show 'loophole.'" Rather than calling it "renegging on an explicitly-legislated compromise", it's a "loophole" that needs "closing."

You're assigning a single mind to a group of uncoordinated actors to create a hypocrisy that probably doesn't exist in any specific individual. It looks like a loophole, it could be in the textbook describing them. You have a law that establishes a rule, then creates a small exception that in effect opts out of the rule entirely. The people who want this provision eliminated don't know it was intended. That's pretty…

>> Rather than calling it "renegging on an explicitly-legislated compromise", it's a "loophole" that needs "closing."

> You're assigning a single mind to a group of uncoordinated actors to create a hypocrisy that probably doesn't exist in any specific individual.

POSIWID

Post reply on HN